Add to ORKGProfessor Greg Dolin of the University of Baltimore School of Law discusses the dispute in Kimble v. Marvel, a case argued before the Supreme Court in March. Petitioner Kimble invented and patented a toy. Respondent Marvel contractually agreed to pay royalties on that patent that included a period of time after the expiration of the patent. The Court is being asked to overrule a precedent dating back to 1964 which held such agreements to be unlawful per se
On March 31, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument for two cases: Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys...
An army officer invented a radar system before World War II but was prevented from patenting it by h...
Article I of the Constitution\u27 expressly provides Congress with the authority to grant inventors ...
Professor Greg Dolin of the University of Baltimore School of Law discusses the dispute in Kimble v....
Whether a contract clause may permit a patent owner to continuously collect royalty payments from a ...
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment held that stare decisis required the Supreme Court to adhere to the h...
A clause in a patent license agreement which requires the licensee to continuously render royalty pa...
A recent decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Scheiber v. Dolby Laboratories, Inc., cal...
In Kimble v. Marvel, the Supreme Court has upheld its 50-year-old ban on charging royalties for use ...
In Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, citing stare decisis, the Court held that a patent holder cannot ch...
This paper studies royalty negotiations between a patent holder and a downstream firm selling a prod...
This paper studies royalty negotiations between a patent holder and a downstream firm selling a prod...
In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., the United States Supreme Court correctly concluded that court...
Reasonable royalty damages are the dominant form of relief awarded in patent infringement cases and ...
The Patent III panel discussion from the Supreme Court IP Review (SCIPR), September 25, 2015, at Chi...
On March 31, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument for two cases: Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys...
An army officer invented a radar system before World War II but was prevented from patenting it by h...
Article I of the Constitution\u27 expressly provides Congress with the authority to grant inventors ...
Professor Greg Dolin of the University of Baltimore School of Law discusses the dispute in Kimble v....
Whether a contract clause may permit a patent owner to continuously collect royalty payments from a ...
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment held that stare decisis required the Supreme Court to adhere to the h...
A clause in a patent license agreement which requires the licensee to continuously render royalty pa...
A recent decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Scheiber v. Dolby Laboratories, Inc., cal...
In Kimble v. Marvel, the Supreme Court has upheld its 50-year-old ban on charging royalties for use ...
In Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, citing stare decisis, the Court held that a patent holder cannot ch...
This paper studies royalty negotiations between a patent holder and a downstream firm selling a prod...
This paper studies royalty negotiations between a patent holder and a downstream firm selling a prod...
In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., the United States Supreme Court correctly concluded that court...
Reasonable royalty damages are the dominant form of relief awarded in patent infringement cases and ...
The Patent III panel discussion from the Supreme Court IP Review (SCIPR), September 25, 2015, at Chi...
On March 31, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument for two cases: Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys...
An army officer invented a radar system before World War II but was prevented from patenting it by h...
Article I of the Constitution\u27 expressly provides Congress with the authority to grant inventors ...